關於 no adverse中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

［結果都係私有化］但，點解要私有化？就解你知。

TLDR：一來就9蚊買10蚊嘢。二來，公司一路擴張業務，但資本唔夠，又集唔到資。老母想增資又受制於75%公共持股限制，咁私有化咪一了百了，私人公司點增次都得

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
月頭訂最抵！2021比別人知得多。subscribe now（https://bityl.co/4Y0h）。Ivan Patreon，港美市場評點，專題號外，每日一圖，好文推介。每星期6篇，月費80，半年已1600人訂！ 畀年費仲有85折
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

1. 上次寫過下廖創興，呢個「短暫停牌」一短暫就搞咗兩個星期。呼，同宇宙歷史相比都係好短暫。

2. Anyway，都係開大路嘢，私有化。原本好似有講「越秀要私有化嘅當年買就順手做埋啦」，的確係。你見當年招商買永隆，私有化除牌；坡佬華僑銀行（OCBC）買永亨，亦係除埋牌。咁但，當年有當年保持上市地位嘅理由，而家一樣可以改變主意啫。可能環境唔同，或者當初考慮得唔周到。陣間會講呢部份。

3. 作價係20.8蚊，較停牌前溢價五成。留意停牌嗰日都仲抽咗三成，「你話冇煙嘥打不如打撚死我啦」，但你估證監會唔會做嘢？梗係證據不足啦。

4. 咁講返，過去五年任何位買嘅，你都贏錢走，還好啦。至於你話個價合唔合理？超，有乜合唔合理，你受咪合理。可以唔受的，要股東會投票，但我估必定過到。特別係今年唔再係舊年咁人人股神，好多人都想套現走人算，陣間私有化唔成又跌返落10蚊邊

5. 另外留意，公告寫明唔會加價，亦不保留呢個權利。即係，take it or leave it，受就受，唔受就拉到。咁你話可唔可以20.8唔受，下個月大股東又玩21蚊私有化？梗係唔得啦，古惑仔烏鴉投長紅定阿仙奴雲加買蘇亞雷斯呀？一次衰咗，應該一年（好似係）不能重提。同樣地，legally binding 的，話咗唔加，就真係唔可以加，唔可以見勢色唔到，「唏當我冇講過」「Please ignore my previous email」

6. 咁你話，有冇公司唔出呢句嘢？有的。咁有冇試過之後真係加價？都試過，不過近年都唔多記得，要講十幾廿年前中信國金（183）（主要係中信嘉華銀行，即係而家中信銀行（國際））私有化，就真係見勢色唔對，然後再加價。

7. 咁都話，過去五年買，你任何位買都贏錢。但可能作價同好多人預期都爭好遠。當然我諗大家咁大個人，唔會以為可以重演金融海融前嗰啲咩3倍book 賣盤。但，你見寫到明，每股淨資產23.14。即係11%折讓，0.9倍book．9蚊買10蚊嘢，抵。而銀行啲資產，好多都mark to market，照計真實價值唔會同在盤數上好大分別。至於咩「商譽」（＊），冇噃，名譽呢樣嘢唔係人人可以有的。

8. 點解私有化？先講官方原因，當然少不免就係股價一路唔掂呀冇成交呀小股東好慘呀而家大股東慈悲為懷畀個機會你走就讓全世界所有罪都讓我揹。真的，每一份都係咁寫，亦即係廢話。正如啲IPO，寫公司賣點係「管理層優秀」，亦即係廢話，因為呢句係萬能key

9. 比較有意思嘅係，佢有講過去7年（即係越秀入主後），公司資產升咗3倍。留意，銀行係highly regulated 嘅生意，你冇足夠嘅資本（equit/capital），就不能畀你擴張，所以生意唔係任做，會有壓力的

10. 咁公司就話，1111呢隻嘢，根本唔會點在市場上集得到資呀（今日先知？）。如果供股呢？又會攤薄權益拖低股價喎（咁你之前又供兩次？）。既然係咁，不如私有化算啦—但留意返，私有化咗嘅銀行，當然一樣受同樣嘅條例影響，所以係咪冇分別？又唔係，因為私人公司，就可以唔使理嗰啲麻煩嘅「關聯交易」之類。BTW，供股not necessarily 會拖低股價的。

11. 講到尾，好簡單，股價夠平，咪做咯，9蚊買10蚊嘢。另外，你可以參考下工行（1398）當年私有化工銀亞洲（349）咁。頭先講過，私有化咗你一樣要守金管局嘅條例，但有一個好大分別：私家雞嘅，老母可以增資落去子公司，咁資本大咗咪做多啲生意。咁點解上市公司唔可以老母增資？因為要有75%公共持股嘛，渣到爆咪冇得再增。我私有化咗佢，咪唔使守75%嘅條例

12. 而燈燈燈燈！越秀咪正係渣到75%咯！

13. 另外留意，實際上越秀要買嘅，只係啲獨立小股東。唔係25%，而係16%。中間嗰9%去咗邊？就係廣州地鐵同廣州汽車都渣住啲股權，而呢兩間都係越秀姐妹公司（廣州市政府嘛），所以係「一致行動人士」，如是我聞（＊＊）

14. 最後可能有人問，「我提咗私有化金融海嘯，可唔可以反口」。答案係…….yes and no．我都唔知。喱文會覺得「好似買樓咁殺訂」「但簽晒紙就冇得反口」，或者講咩「合約精神」（＊＊＊＊）。實務上？「好難講」。我好奇怪，點解啲友就咁望下個新聞頭條，就可以決定埋「邊有得反口」「一日未畀錢一日都可以改變主意」。即係，你覺得律師收咁貴係做乜的？即使律師根本都答唔到你啦。早排都有單，Victoria Secret賣盤，傾完就肺炎，有人想彈弓手。真係打到法庭先知點先計　Material adverse change　點先叫Force majeure

（＊）Goodwill是也，每次我都鬧「商譽」呢個中文名不知所謂，亦差不多每次都有人出嚟講「官方係咁譯喎」，as if 我唔知咁。屌你，我咪就係屌個「官方」譯名不知所謂咯，當年啲師爺水平低，就唔鬧得？你幾撚多人真係以為「商譽」係brand value。Goodwill，就只係「溢價買嘢突咗舊嘢在Balance Sheet平唔到唯有搵舊嘢攝住個位遲下慢慢磨走佢」。學校冇教你呢？

（＊＊）當然我都好奇怪，「點解建行拆幾百億幾千億interbank就唔係關連交易呢？」「明明都係中央匯金」。又或者，「點解聯通 中電信 中移動啲高層可以打麻雀咁執位？明明都係工信部國資委，拎咗white wash冇？」（＊＊＊）

（＊＊＊）不過真係尋根究底嘅，「主權政府」一般係不受呢啲條款限制的，亦唔止係中國政府。

（＊＊＊＊）再講一次，呢個名詞夠晒混帳，唔知邊個發明出嚟的。你見鬼佬邊有呢個字？合約唔係匠人精神，你唔使尊重的，上法庭咯。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
月頭訂最抵！2021比別人知得多。subscribe now（https://bityl.co/4Y0h）。Ivan Patreon，港美市場評點，專題號外，每日一圖，好文推介。每星期6篇，月費80，半年已1600人訂！ 畀年費仲有85折
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

今早為Asian Medical Students Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK)的新一屆執行委員會就職典禮作致詞分享嘉賓，題目為「疫情中的健康不公平」。
感謝他們的熱情款待以及為整段致詞拍了影片。以下我附上致詞的英文原稿：

It's been my honor to be invited to give the closing remarks for the Inauguration Ceremony for the incoming executive committee of the Asian Medical Students' Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK) this morning. A video has been taken for the remarks I made regarding health inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic (big thanks to the student who withstood the soreness of her arm for holding the camera up for 15 minutes straight), and here's the transcript of the main body of the speech that goes with this video:

//The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, continues to be rampant around the world since early 2020, resulting in more than 55 million cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide as of today. (So no! It’s not a hoax for those conspiracy theorists out there!) A higher rate of incidence and deaths, as well as worse health-related quality of life have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, including people of lower socioeconomic position, older persons, migrants, ethnic minority and communities of color, etc. While epidemiologists and scientists around the world are dedicated in gathering scientific evidence on the specific causes and determinants of the health inequalities observed in different countries and regions, we can apply the Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework developed by the World Health Organization team led by the eminent Prof Sir Michael Marmot, world’s leading social epidemiologist, to understand and delineate these social determinants of health inequalities related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to this framework, social determinants of health can be largely categorized into two types – 1) the lower stream, intermediary determinants, and 2) the upper stream, structural and macro-environmental determinants. For the COVID-19 pandemic, we realized that the lower stream factors may include material circumstances, such as people’s living and working conditions. For instance, the nature of the occupations of these people of lower socioeconomic position tends to require them to travel outside to work, i.e., they cannot work from home, which is a luxury for people who can afford to do it. This lack of choice in the location of occupation may expose them to greater risk of infection through more transportation and interactions with strangers. We have also seen infection clusters among crowded places like elderly homes, public housing estates, and boarding houses for foreign domestic helpers. Moreover, these socially disadvantaged people tend to have lower financial and social capital – it can be observed that they were more likely to be deprived of personal protective equipment like face masks and hand sanitizers, especially during the earlier days of the pandemic. On the other hand, the upper stream, structural determinants of health may include policies related to public health, education, macroeconomics, social protection and welfare, as well as our governance… and last, but not least, our culture and values. If the socioeconomic and political contexts are not favorable to the socially disadvantaged, their health and well-being will be disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Therefore, if we, as a society, espouse to address and reduce the problem of health inequalities, social determinants of health cannot be overlooked in devising and designing any public health-related strategies, measures and policies.

Although a higher rate of incidence and deaths have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, especially in countries with severe COVID-19 outbreaks, this phenomenon seems to be less discussed and less covered by media in Hong Kong, where the disease incidence is relatively low when compared with other countries around the world. Before the resurgence of local cases in early July, local spread of COVID-19 was sporadic and most cases were imported. In the earlier days of the pandemic, most cases were primarily imported by travelers and return-students studying overseas, leading to a minor surge between mid-March and mid-April of 874 new cases. Most of these cases during Spring were people who could afford to travel and study abroad, and thus tended to be more well-off. Therefore, some would say the expected social gradient in health impact did not seem to exist in Hong Kong, but may I remind you that, it is only the case when we focus on COVID-19-specific incidence and mortality alone. But can we really deduce from this that COVID-19-related health inequality does not exist in Hong Kong? According to the Social Determinants of Health Framework mentioned earlier, the obvious answer is “No, of course not.” And here’s why…

In addition to the direct disease burden, the COVID-19 outbreak and its associated containment measures (such as economic lockdown, mandatory social distancing, and change of work arrangements) could have unequal wider socioeconomic impacts on the general population, especially in regions with pervasive existing social inequalities. Given the limited resources and capacity of the socioeconomically disadvantaged to respond to emergency and adverse events, their general health and well-being are likely to be unduly and inordinately affected by the abrupt changes in their daily economic and social conditions, like job loss and insecurity, brought about by the COVID-19 outbreak and the corresponding containment and mitigation measures of which the main purpose was supposedly disease prevention and health protection at the first place. As such, focusing only on COVID-19 incidence or mortality as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities may leave out important aspects of life that contributes significantly to people’s health. Recently, my research team and I collaborated with Sir Michael Marmot in a Hong Kong study, and found that the poor people in Hong Kong fared worse in every aspects of life than their richer counterparts in terms of economic activity, personal protective equipment, personal hygiene practice, as well as well-being and health after the COVID-19 outbreak. We also found that part of the observed health inequality can be attributed to the pandemic and its related containment measures via people’s concerns over their own and their families’ livelihood and economic activity. In other words, health inequalities were contributed by the pandemic even in a city where incidence is relatively low through other social determinants of health that directly concerned the livelihood and economic activity of the people. So in this study, we confirmed that focusing only on the incident and death cases as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities is like a story half-told, and would severely truncate and distort the reality.

Truth be told, health inequality does not only appear after the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19, it is a pre-existing condition in countries and regions around the world, including Hong Kong. My research over the years have consistently shown that people in lower socioeconomic position tend to have worse physical and mental health status. Nevertheless, precisely because health inequality is nothing new, there are always voices in our society trying to dismiss the problem, arguing that it is only natural to have wealth inequality in any capitalistic society. However, in reckoning with health inequalities, we need to go beyond just figuring out the disparities or differences in health status between the poor and the rich, and we need to raise an ethically relevant question: are these inequalities, disparities and differences remediable? Can they be fixed? Can we do something about them? If they are remediable, and we can do something about them but we haven’t, then we’d say these inequalities are ultimately unjust and unfair. In other words, a society that prides itself in pursuing justice must, and I say must, strive to address and reduce these unfair health inequalities. Borrowing the words from famed sociologist Judith Butler, “the virus alone does not discriminate,” but “social and economic inequality will make sure that it does.” With COVID-19, we learn that it is not only the individuals who are sick, but our society. And it’s time we do something about it.

Thank you very much!//

Please join me in congratulating the incoming executive committee of AMSAHK and giving them the best wishes for their future endeavor!

Roger Chung, PhD
Assistant Professor, CUHK JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, @CUHK Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學 - CUHK
Associate Director, CUHK Institute of Health Equity

這篇文章很仔細的說明了母乳與配方奶的不同，也解釋了常見的母乳疑慮，值得所有哺乳家庭ㄧ讀，知道自己的努力是為了給予孩子非常重要又無可取代的珍貴食物喔！
我通常用十個字總結母乳的重要性：天然的尚好，有吃有保庇！

【我們需要詳實的科學研究報導】陳鈺萍醫師
這樣的報導標題讓人無言......
http://www.nextmag.com.tw/breaking-n…/news/20150821/24714101
重要的是政府應該禁止有毒物質的使用，而不是強調母奶有毒。

(以下是我的說明，有需要的請轉，不用客氣）

===============(分隔線)===================
原本Daily Mail文章的標題是
"Breastfeeding 'could be passing on toxic chemicals to babies': Compounds found on everyday items such as pans may damage children's immune systems, study claims"
〈餵母奶可能將有毒化學物質經母奶傳給寶寶：研究顯示日常生活用品中（例如：鍋子）的化合物，可能造成孩子免疫系統的傷害〉

副標三點聲明：
Perfluorinated alkylate substances can suppress a child's immune system
Mothers warned to avoid using anything with PFAS and vacuum regularly
Experts say findings do not mean women should stop breastfeeding

PFAS會抑制兒童的免疫系統
母親們被警告避免使用含PFAS的物品以及經常吸塵
專家說這樣的研究發現不代表母親們需要停止哺乳

後面有好大一段，這中文報導遺漏了。
Dr Michael Warhurst, of campaign group CHEM Trust, said: ‘We shouldn’t forget that breastfeeding is the best option for babies, but it is shocking that the chemical industry’s careless production of persistent chemicals is leading to this contamination.
‘Why has the chemical industry produced these chemicals at all?
‘How is it possible that some are still in regular use, for example in microwave popcorn?
‘Why have the UK and EU not already banned them? It's time governments got the actions of the chemical industry under control.’
Others said the number of babies studied was small and the technique used was flawed.
Alison Burton, of Public Health England, said ‘The overwhelming evidence, based on decades of research, clearly tells us that breast feeding provides the very best nutrition for babies and helps protect against infections.
‘Public Health England’s advice is to breastfeed exclusively for the first six months.’
The Chemical Industries Association, which represents manufacturers, said that advances in science make it possible to detect ever-smaller amounts of chemicals in our bodies, but this does not necessarily mean that they are harmful.

重要的是政府應該禁止有毒物質的使用，而不是強調母奶有毒。

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Breastfeeding-passing-toxic-ch…

到發表訊息的哈佛大學公衛學院網站，找到這篇聲明。
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/…/breastfeeding-may-expose-inf…/

“There is no reason to discourage breastfeeding, but we are concerned that these pollutants are transferred to the next generation at a very vulnerable age. Unfortunately, the current U.S. legislation does not require any testing of chemical substances like PFASs for their transfer to babies and any related adverse effects,” Grandjean said.

研究目的是希望美國政府對有毒物質訂出規範，不是要大家不餵母奶。

附上傑克紐曼醫師【有毒物質和嬰兒餵食(Toxins and Infant Feeding)】的衛教單張

母乳含有毒物質的疑慮已經在給病人的衛教單張中提及，因為這個議題每幾個月就會出現在媒體上，規律的像時鐘運作一樣，使得許多懷孕婦女感到恐懼而不願餵母乳，並讓許多已經在餵母乳的母親停餵母奶。記者們似乎不知道如何好好處理這個問題，感覺上像是有些人心中另有隱情且內心背負著一個壓力（“我的寶寶雖然沒餵母奶，但是他長得很好啊”），因此找一個方法反擊支持餵母乳的人，來合理化他們餵食嬰兒的選擇。當然這些作法相當不具專業性，可是這並沒有使他們停止。有些人只是試著去忽視這些新聞，並沒有想要深入去了解自己平常在做的事。例如他們不了解在討論母乳中含有毒物質和認為配方奶是一個幾近良好的替代品時，就等於在做打擊母乳的行動。
為什麼有這麼多研究是在進行母乳中有毒成分的討論呢？這讓人覺得現代社會對母乳很恐懼，好像母乳已經被污染到每個人都想研究它了。但母乳這麼常被研究的原因是在於它的可及性高，是相當容易取得的人體體液樣本。這才是研究母乳的真正原因，而非科學家特別擔心母乳的關係。

配方奶和母奶幾乎一樣嗎？
不，一點也不一樣。只因為這幾年配方奶公司添加一些我們在幾年前就已經知道母乳中含有的成分(而配方奶公司一直否認其重要性)到他們的產品中，並不代表這個“新改良”的配方奶就像母乳一樣。在一些情況中，配方奶是有在改良了，但請記住，這些公司在新改良的產品上市前也告訴我們說他們的舊產品也是幾近於母乳。例如長鏈多元不飽和脂肪酸（DHA 和AA）被認為可以讓你的寶寶更聰明(有一個公司甚至把它的產品稱為A+，但是我看最多只有C-)。很多年來我們已經知道這些脂肪有多重要，但之前(當然是他們加到配方奶中之前)這些配方奶公司和許多附和著他們意見的醫學專業人士都說，這些脂肪沒什麼影響且沒有任何証據証明這些脂肪的重要性(這種論點仍然在1995 年加拿大小兒科醫學會的早產兒營養需求聲明中出現)。他們的這些說法首先從“我們的配方奶跟母乳一樣”，再接著說“我們已經加了某些物質到產品中，所以變得更像母乳”，這些不斷循環的說詞早從十九世紀就開始了。
真正的事實是這樣的：
1. 只是添加一些東西到配方奶中，即使是跟母奶中同樣的含量，並不代表寶寶會攝取到這些物質同樣的量或最好的成分。舉鐵質吸收的例子就可以幫助我們了解這種情形。母乳中包含足夠多的鐵質(再加上懷孕時已經儲存在寶寶體內的鐵質)，這已經足夠寶寶至少六個月的鐵質需求。但為了維持配方奶寶寶鐵質的足夠，配方奶中需要含有至少比母乳高六倍以上的鐵質，只因為寶寶的腸胃道對於配方奶中的鐵質不如母乳中好吸收。
2. 仍有數百種母乳的成分未加入配方奶。
3. 母乳都會隨著時間改變其內容物。其成分從早至晚，從開始餵母乳至結束，從餵母乳的第一天、第四天、第十天到第一百天都會有所不同，所以我們無法得知母乳中真正含有哪些成分。這表示母乳是無法複製的，因為根本沒有標準母乳可言。事實上既然每位婦女所產生的母乳都有一點點不同，宣稱有所謂的標準母乳本來就很荒唐了，母乳是一種生機活力的飲品，配方奶只是含一堆化學成分的湯罷了。
所以這些事實這代表什麼?
這代表我們應該將配方奶視為一種藥物。其實仔細思考，配方奶本來就是屬於藥品。它取代了正規的液體(母乳)，對母乳本身而言，只能算是一種膚淺而表面的代替品。配方奶在短期和中長期的使用上都會有一些副作用，有些是非常嚴重而且不可回復性的。配方奶就如同藥物一樣，可能偶爾須要它。只在很罕見的情況下，配方奶可以成為救命良方，就像藥物一樣。如同我在醫學院時的藥學教授所說的，藥物是一種有良性副作用的毒物或是有毒物質。這種說法其實富含著智慧。所以當一位母親決定捨棄哺乳而餵她的寶寶人工合成的奶粉時，她並不能避開給小寶寶有毒物質的問題。
事實上很另人驚訝的是，我們是如此地沉迷於配方奶之中。在到目前為止，在我所讀過或是看過的那些告訴我們母奶有毒的文章或電視節目中，可曾討論過配方奶也有毒的問題？配方奶的確是含有毒素的。為什麼地球上所有的東西都被污染了，連遠在北極圈的區域都被波及了，就獨獨配方奶沒有問題？配方奶充滿了重金屬成分，例如鉛，其含量比母乳還高。還有為什麼農藥及殺蟲劑不會殘留成分在配方奶之中呢？畢竟乳牛都是生長在灑有農藥的鄉間農場；而且用來做飼料的黃豆也在那生長。有趣的是，你從未在報紙上讀到這些消息。

但是既然含有毒素不是就不好嗎？
的確不好，但是母乳哺育可以幫助減低這些副作用。
以下是一些事實驗證說明：
1. 有毒物質會增加誘發某些癌症的機率。正確，但是研究証明，母奶寶寶跟配方奶寶寶比起來在某些癌症上有較低的發生率。
2. 有毒物質會干擾神經功能和學習能力。正確，但是研究証明母乳寶寶比配方奶寶寶在神經功能和智力測驗上的表現較好，而且哺乳期持續越久的寶寶成績愈好。
3. 有毒物質會影響免疫功能。正確，但是研究証明母乳寶寶比配方奶寶寶有較好而且成熟的免疫功能，而且這種免疫功能會持續得比嬰兒和孩童他們的哺乳期還久。



妳應該怎麼做？
如果妳選擇親自哺乳，妳就是為妳的寶寶、為這個世界做了最好的選擇。哺育母乳也是在做對環境友善的事，反之餵食配方奶則會污染環境。母奶中含有毒物質的事實，就如同是金絲雀身處在礦坑中的窘況一般。我們應該憂心的是我們的所作所為對地球的影響，但是這不應該成為鼓勵我們餵寶寶人工配方奶粉的原因。

如有疑問，請email到drjacknewman@sympatico.ca給Jack Newman ，或breastfeeding@sympatico.ca給Edith Kernerman，或翻閱書籍：Dr. Jack Newman’s Visual Guide to Breastfeeding (在美國稱作 The Ultimate Breastfeeding Book of Answers) ，或是看我們的 DVD： Dr. Jack Newman’s Visual Guide to Breastfeeding，或The Latch Book and Other Keys to Breastfeeding Success，或L-eat Latch & Transfer Tool，或 the GamePlan for Protecting and Supporting Breastfeeding in the First 24 Hours of Life and Beyond。請看我們的網站 www.drjacknewman.com，如要預約請email 到breastfeeding@ccnm.edu，或打以下電話416-498-0002。

單張 有毒物質和嬰兒餵食， 2008年5月修改
1995-2005 Jack Newman, MD, FRCPC撰寫及修改

只要在不違反WHO國際母乳代用品銷售守則下，可以不需經過進一步的許可，列印或發送本單張。

翻譯：張端芳 王儷燕 審稿：高美玲

Photo from https://goo.gl/QtPXg9